Not defending the ISP's here, but that's not quite how it works in most of the U.S. In most places, it's labeled Sale Price + sales tax. Sales tax is usually predictable based on City/State, but varies amongst them.

Again, not defending the ISP's here, but at most U.S. stores they like to advertise (for example) "$6 pairs of socks for $9.99+tax." The final price, including tax, will vary by City/State. The "+Tax" part is usually fairly simple because it's just one or two percentage-based summed taxes.

ISP's are trying to do the same thing, except instead of just adding the total local/state/fed tax, they're also adding fees such as maybe Pole fees, billing fees, who knows what else. This allows them to advertise "$49.99/mo for 1Gb service" but once all the fees are added up, it's more like $65mo. Not sure what the right answer here is, but what they should have to do is advertise "$49.99/mo+TaxesAndFees for 1GB service" and then publish what those itemized taxes and fees are for all services areas. They don't want to do the latter.

Please explain this. A car rolling downhill in neutral requires literally 0 fuel. One could turn on the ICE entirely I suppose, really making the point, but putting an ICE in gear could only introduce either acceleration beyond gravity requiring fuel or increase resistance (engine braking.) So clearly putting any vehicle in neutral and rolling downhill is the most energy efficient method. Now, if you're indicating that every car made in the last 20 years is some sort of hybrid with battery regeneration capabilities, I could almost see your argument. Except for that one part, where not every car made in the last 20 years has those features. Not even close.

The world would be a much better place if people could learn to recognize sarcasm again.

This has nothing to do with committing crimes. Almost any physical or logical items can be used to commit a crime. Instead this is about who is liable for harm. Are the AI/Social Media/big tech companies liable for harms caused using their products, or are the users? The same argument has been had about gun and even manufacturers, but oddly not rock quarries or hammer manufacturers.

I presume you mean all the data and software related to a supercomputer, right? Like, sure, you wouldn't "beam down" a supercomputer Star Trek style. But, there are certainly many cases of "hackers" downloading datasets and operating software from so-called "supercomputers" in the news on a regular basis. So yeah, someone might and often do "download supercomputers."

Define "normal"

These are literally some of the primary reasons game makers are moving TO Digital-only game distribution. They don't want this stuff.

You think datacenters don't use 3-phase power?

Should be able to vibe-code that with Llama in a couple hours. Totally secure, and get employee credits for using AI too!

It's important to be accurate when attributing deaths to any disaster. There is only 1 death attributed to the nuclear incident itself. The rest were related to evacuation or other stresses. It doesn't seem extraordinary to assume most of those people would have had to evacuate because of the Tsunami anyway, reactor incident or not.

https://world-nuclear.org/info...

Sure, ultimately it's weight. But given the choice of (Battery Weight + Airframe Weight) or (Battery/Airframe Weight) where the latter may be significantly lighter, you get efficiency. Maybe it doesn't save space, but if it saves weight that would translate to greater range or payload capacity or similar.

Headline is that Solar produced more power in May than Coal in the U.S. Yet most of the comments here are about how evil Trump is and how he's destroying the environment or what not. Which is it? Is Solar increasing electrical production share under this administration, or not? Conflating whether or not people's political preferences align has nothing to do with the other.

Considering the relatively limited amount of time mRNA vaccines have been deployed en masse, your cats are probably about as qualified as anybody to opine on their efficacy.

The risk mitigation strategy here is far more complicated than that. For a DC to completely cut grid power and switch to onsite generation would require onsite generation to have the ability to run for extended durations in case of grid collapse, including fuel for however many days/weeks that might be. If a DC is going to have that much generation onsite they would be more likely to use onsite power as the primary, grid as secondary which is also potentially problematic for the grid. The more rational risk mitigation would be to have enough onsite generation to perform load balancing and or systems shutdown in case of a grid outage. The effect would be, onsite would support the input power for a short period of time. It would not prevent a grid collapse, but it would not cause one either.

Many DC's do, for sure, employ line conditioning at grid scale using a number of methods (battery, flywheel, etc.) Those contribute as mitigation to the catastrophic scenario, but are not designed as more than short-term interventions.

This is an interesting analysis, and I don't necessarily disagree with the points made. I would only point out that the Immunity ruling was in July, 2024 while Biden was President, and he absolutely utilized #2 and #3 and arguably #1. Suggesting that this is a Trump-only problem is disingenuous.